Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Fourth amendment (9)
- Fourth Amendment (4)
- Search and seizure (4)
- Search (3)
- Constitutional law (2)
-
- Fourteenth amendment (2)
- Habeas corpus (2)
- Knock-and-talk (2)
- Probable cause (2)
- Seizure (2)
- Warrant (2)
- AEDPA (1)
- ALPR (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Affirmative Action (1)
- Alcohol level (1)
- Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (1)
- Automated License Plate Recoginition (1)
- Blood test (1)
- Bumper v. North Carolina (1)
- Cell Phone (1)
- Cell phone tracking (1)
- Chimel v. California (1)
- Conservative Supreme Court (1)
- Constitutionality (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Criminal trial (1)
- Drug dogs (1)
- Drugs (1)
- Drunk driving (1)
Articles 1 - 15 of 15
Full-Text Articles in Law
State V. Pinkham: Erosion Of Meaningful Forth Amendment Protection For Vehicle Stops In Maine?, Roger M. Clement Jr.
State V. Pinkham: Erosion Of Meaningful Forth Amendment Protection For Vehicle Stops In Maine?, Roger M. Clement Jr.
Maine Law Review
In State v. Pinkham, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held that a police officer's stop of a motorist to inquire and advise about the motorist's improper-but not illegal-lane usage did not necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable seizures. The Pinkham decision is the first time that the Law Court has validated the stop of a moving vehicle in the absence of either a suspected violation of law or an imminent, ongoing threat to highway safety. This Note considers whether the Law Court was correct in sustaining the police officer's stop of Ronald Pinkham. …
Please Stop: The Law Court's Recent Roadblock Decisions, Jonathan A. Block
Please Stop: The Law Court's Recent Roadblock Decisions, Jonathan A. Block
Maine Law Review
Police checkpoints or “roadblocks” have become an increasingly utilized law enforcement tool. At best, these checkpoints result in only a minor inconvenience to motorists. When abused, however, roadblocks have the potential for invidious invasions of privacy and personal freedom. Roadblocks are designed to deter, and to a lesser extent detect, criminal activity by stopping everyone—both the guilty and the law-abiding—for a brief inspection, thereby impinging to some degree on one's freedom of travel, privacy, and “right to be let alone.” Such “seizures” must be “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment in order to survive constitutional challenge. The major difference between roadblocks …
Sniffing Out The Fourth Amendment: United States V. Place-Dog Sniffs-Ten Years Later, Hope Walker Hall
Sniffing Out The Fourth Amendment: United States V. Place-Dog Sniffs-Ten Years Later, Hope Walker Hall
Maine Law Review
In the endless and seemingly futile government war against drugs, protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution may have fallen by the wayside as courts struggle to deal with drug offenders. The compelling government interest in controlling the influx of drugs all too often results in a judicial attitude that the ends justify the means. Judges can be reluctant to exclude evidence of drugs found in an unlawful search pursuant to the exclusionary rule, which provides that illegally obtained evidence may not be used at trial. The exclusion of drugs as evidence in drug cases often …
Whren V. United States: An Abrupt End To The Debate Over Pretextual Stops, Brian J. O'Donnell
Whren V. United States: An Abrupt End To The Debate Over Pretextual Stops, Brian J. O'Donnell
Maine Law Review
In Whren v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that a traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if a police officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred, even if the stop is a pretext for the investigation of a more serious offense. The Court affirmed the convictions of Michael A. Whren and James L. Brown, who had been arrested on federal drug charges after Washington, D.C., police stopped Brown for minor traffic infractions. The Court's unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Scalia, brought an end to a long-running debate over the proper …
Standing Under State Search And Seizure Provision: Why The Minnesota Supreme Court Should Have Rejected The Federal Standards And Instead Invoked Greater Protection Under Its Own Constitution In State V. Carter, Rebecca C. Garrett
Maine Law Review
In State v. Carter, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether a criminal defendant had “standing” to challenge an alleged search under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. The defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained by a police officer who had peered in the window of an apartment where the defendant was participating in a drug-packaging operation with the apartment's leaseholder. A divided court held that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment. Therefore, the defendant had standing to challenge the legality of the police officer's observations pursuant to the Fourth …
Does The End Justify The Means? The Clumsy And Circuitous Logic Of Blood Test Admissibility In Criminal Prosecutions In State V. Cormier, Kyle T. Macdonald
Does The End Justify The Means? The Clumsy And Circuitous Logic Of Blood Test Admissibility In Criminal Prosecutions In State V. Cormier, Kyle T. Macdonald
Maine Law Review
In State v. Cormier, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, was asked to determine whether a Maine statute requiring law enforcement officers to test the blood of all drivers for intoxicants following a fatal motor vehicle collision violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution when the operation of the statute allows for the admission of those blood test results in a future criminal trial of the driver. In determining that the procedures of title 29-A, section 2522 of the Maine Revised Statutes are not violative of the Fourth Amendment, the Law Court effectively confirmed …
The Supreme Court's Long And Perhaps Unnecessary Struggle To Find A Standard Of Culpability To Regulate The Federal Exclusionary Remedy For Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment Violations, Melvyn H. Zarr
Maine Law Review
On January 14, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided Herring v. United States. In Herring, the defendant moved to suppress evidence that he alleged was seized as a result of an arrest that violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court approved the decision below to deny suppression of the evidence. The decision set off a flurry of speculation that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule would not see its 100th birthday in 2014. A headline in the New York Times of January 31 declared: “Supreme Court Edging Closer to Repeal of Evidence Ruling.” Another …
Reflections On Forty Years Of Private Practice And Sustained Pro Bono Advocacy, Stephen H. Oleskey
Reflections On Forty Years Of Private Practice And Sustained Pro Bono Advocacy, Stephen H. Oleskey
Maine Law Review
I am going to address two topics. The first is the one Judge Coffin asked me to address in October 2009, when I was invited to give the 2010 Coffin Lecture: how to combine the private practice of law with an active pro bono practice. The second topic is the one Dean Peter Pitegoff and I agreed to add: a brief discussion of legal developments in national security law since 9/11. My pro bono involvement in Guantanamo Habeas litigation began in 2004 and led directly to my interest in national security law and to my recognition of how difficult it …
The Prolonged Arm Of The Law: Fourth Amendment Principles, The Maynard Decision, And The Need For A New Warrant For Electronic Tracking, R. Reeve Wood Iii
The Prolonged Arm Of The Law: Fourth Amendment Principles, The Maynard Decision, And The Need For A New Warrant For Electronic Tracking, R. Reeve Wood Iii
Maine Law Review
This article examines the decision in United States v. Maynard as well as the simultaneous emergence of a vocal set of magistrate judges advocating for Fourth Amendment protection for cell phone location information. It argues that, even if the Maynard rationale is widely adopted and the use of tracking devices is found to be a search, the Fourth Amendment principles of specificity and limited discretion on the part of government officers mean that the warrant frameworks currently in use will not provide adequate protection from the threat of government officers obtaining information for which they have not demonstrated a need. …
Federal Habeas Review Of State Court Convictions: Incoherent Law But An Essential Right, Lynn Adelman
Federal Habeas Review Of State Court Convictions: Incoherent Law But An Essential Right, Lynn Adelman
Maine Law Review
I thank the editors of the Maine Law Review for the opportunity to participate in a discussion about the present state of post-conviction review of criminal convictions. This discussion is important and timely both because the quality of the procedures by which state prisoners can obtain post-conviction review varies greatly from state to state and because state prisoners who seek federal court review of their constitutional claims by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus face many obstacles. As a federal district judge, my experience is primarily with the later problem. Thus, in this article, I will offer a few …
Kentucky V. King: A New Approach To Consent-Based Police Encounters?, Jamesa J. Drake
Kentucky V. King: A New Approach To Consent-Based Police Encounters?, Jamesa J. Drake
Maine Law Review
The exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement permits the police to enter a private residence, without prior judicial approval, whenever the police have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that the destruction of evidence is imminent or underway. The United States Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncement in the exigent circumstances realm—Kentucky v. King—is not a case about exigent circumstances per se. Instead, King concerns the “policecreated exigency” doctrine, a concept that the vast majority of federal and state courts already recognize.This doctrine adds a crucial caveat to the exigent circumstances rule, but it is not new. It provides that …
What Is The Scope Of Searches Of Cell Phones Incident To Arrest? United States V. Wurie And The Return Of Chimel, Benjamin J. Wahrer
What Is The Scope Of Searches Of Cell Phones Incident To Arrest? United States V. Wurie And The Return Of Chimel, Benjamin J. Wahrer
Maine Law Review
Americans can potentially be arrested for hundreds of nonviolent, minor offenses In fact in 2012, nearly 1 out of every 25 Americans was arrested. Alarmingly, this figure is even higher among youths, with 1 out of every 3 expected to be arrested at least once by the time they turn 23. Once played under arrest, an individual’s expectation of privacy is severely reduced and law enforcement personnel traditionally have broad authority to search and seize anything found on the arrestee’s person, no matter the nature of the arresting crime. For example, it is well-settled law that the arresting officer may …
Local Law Enforcement Jumps On The Big Data Bandwagon: Automated License Plate Recognition Systems, Infomation Privacy, And Access To Government Information, Bryce Clayton Newell
Local Law Enforcement Jumps On The Big Data Bandwagon: Automated License Plate Recognition Systems, Infomation Privacy, And Access To Government Information, Bryce Clayton Newell
Maine Law Review
As government agencies and law enforcement departments increasingly adopt big-data surveillance technologies as part of their routine investigatory practice, personal information privacy concerns are becoming progressively more palpable. On the other hand, advancing technologies and data-mining potentially offer law enforcement greater ability to detect, investigate, and prosecute criminal activity. These concerns (for personal information privacy and the efficacy of law enforcement) are both very important in contemporary society. On one view, American privacy law has not kept up with advancing technological capabilities, and government agencies have arguably begun to overstep the acceptable boundaries of information access, violating the privacy of …
Reason And Reasonableness: The Necessary Diversity Of The Common Law, Frederic G. Sourgens
Reason And Reasonableness: The Necessary Diversity Of The Common Law, Frederic G. Sourgens
Maine Law Review
This Article addresses the central concept of “reasonableness” in the common law and constitutional jurisprudence. On the basis of three examples, the common law of torts, the common law of contracts, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Article notes that different areas of the law follow fundamentally inconsistent utilitarian, pragmatic, and formalist reasonableness paradigms. The significance of this diversity of reasonableness paradigms remains largely under-theorized. This Article submits that the diversity of reasonableness paradigms is a necessary feature of the common law. It theorizes that the utilitarian, pragmatic and formalistic paradigms are structural elements driving the common law norm-generation process. This …
Knock And Talk No More, Jamesa J. Drake
Knock And Talk No More, Jamesa J. Drake
Maine Law Review
The Supreme Court has set out a roadmap for challenging one of the most common and insidious police tactics used today: the knock-and-talk. The path is short and clear and it leads to the inescapable conclusion that the knock-and-talk—as it is actually employed in practice—is unconstitutional. Although the Court has yet to squarely consider the issue, some Justices have already taken pains to say, in dictum, that knock-and-talks are lawful. Practitioners should not be dissuaded. What this faction of the Court describes is a highly romanticized—and utterly inaccurate—conception of what a knock-and-talk actually entails. The sort of activity that these …